Cheating from Worlds Contestants
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
ShadowGuard
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
One more thing about pile shuffling - I use it to negate all clumping effects from previous games before I start the actual shuffle. In addition, as already mentioned, you can check if you've got all cards in your deck.
Even if that makes counting easier, the number of piles should not be a factor of 60 (personally, I make 7 piles, and if I end up putting the last card on the 4th pile I've got 60 cards), cause having equal sizes for all piles would decrease randomization and make it easier to stack or keep pre-set orders. I'd say that pile shuffling with 6 piles or 5 piles is suspicious, but there are a lot of players who just do it that way to count there deck easier. However, if your opponent pile shuffles that way, you really should make sure that he performs a sufficient true shuffle afterwards.
Even if that makes counting easier, the number of piles should not be a factor of 60 (personally, I make 7 piles, and if I end up putting the last card on the 4th pile I've got 60 cards), cause having equal sizes for all piles would decrease randomization and make it easier to stack or keep pre-set orders. I'd say that pile shuffling with 6 piles or 5 piles is suspicious, but there are a lot of players who just do it that way to count there deck easier. However, if your opponent pile shuffles that way, you really should make sure that he performs a sufficient true shuffle afterwards.
Otaku
Active Member
Better idea... just always perform a sufficient shuffle after your opponent does. It just makes things easier when that is the norm. Then let them cut and get started.
meganium45
Active Member
I have a feeling that the word got out that the Worlds Judges were aware of the issue.
There was actually a plan in place to catch a stacker, if we were confident a deck was stacked.
Let's leave the particulars out of it, in case this issue raises its head again.
The goal of my judging staff (Worlds Masters) along with every judging staff at any event is that the event be decided FAIRLY at the TABLES.
I hope that my wish was granted for Worlds this year...
I think it was.
Vince
There was actually a plan in place to catch a stacker, if we were confident a deck was stacked.
Let's leave the particulars out of it, in case this issue raises its head again.
The goal of my judging staff (Worlds Masters) along with every judging staff at any event is that the event be decided FAIRLY at the TABLES.
I hope that my wish was granted for Worlds this year...
I think it was.
Vince
LibertyFigter
New Member
First of all, thanks for the post(s) Jason, it's always important to educate newer players, like myself, on common cheating methods.
Aside from the thanks, I'm seeing a lot of people hating on the pile shuffle, and I think it is misguided. Certainly, the deck does not become randomized after being placed methodically in a new order. However, between tournament games, pile shuffling is a near necessity. After a game, your cards will be in a non-random order: your energy will be mostly stacked next to Pokemon cards, your evolutions will be clumped together, and trainers will likely be in clumps too. The act of physically looking at your cards and declumping is extreme and inadvisable, however pile shuffling helps bring the unrandomized deck into at least a more raw state... As long as the pile shuffles are done right.
1. Vary the number of piles with which you shuffle. This can help prevent patterns from occurring.
2. Do not pick up the piles in any specific order. Do your best to randomize your selection.
3. Overhand and riffle shuffle at least once before pile, then multiple times after.
While pile shuffling is not the best way to shuffle cards, in a TCG, we all try and protect our collection, and the aggressive shuffling required to sufficiently randomize a deck (around 8 to 9 perfect riffles) is not feasible to retain card value or play in current time restrictions.
Aside from the thanks, I'm seeing a lot of people hating on the pile shuffle, and I think it is misguided. Certainly, the deck does not become randomized after being placed methodically in a new order. However, between tournament games, pile shuffling is a near necessity. After a game, your cards will be in a non-random order: your energy will be mostly stacked next to Pokemon cards, your evolutions will be clumped together, and trainers will likely be in clumps too. The act of physically looking at your cards and declumping is extreme and inadvisable, however pile shuffling helps bring the unrandomized deck into at least a more raw state... As long as the pile shuffles are done right.
1. Vary the number of piles with which you shuffle. This can help prevent patterns from occurring.
2. Do not pick up the piles in any specific order. Do your best to randomize your selection.
3. Overhand and riffle shuffle at least once before pile, then multiple times after.
While pile shuffling is not the best way to shuffle cards, in a TCG, we all try and protect our collection, and the aggressive shuffling required to sufficiently randomize a deck (around 8 to 9 perfect riffles) is not feasible to retain card value or play in current time restrictions.
KazamBolt
Active Member
After seeing some previous posts, I figured I might as well make this response. Although this might not be the best place for it, I thought I might present my argument as to why I support declumping.
In any shuffle other than a pile shuffle, it is very likely that any 2 cards may stay together through the entire shuffle. That's just the nature of shuffling, whether you do a riffle shuffle, a cut style shuffle, or really anything else I can think of.
By declumping your deck before hand, or just moving the 2 DCE or Juniper or anything else that are right next to each other just a few cards apart, you would then maximize the chance to have those cards not next to each other. Technically, I would say that as long as you don't specifically pick what cards the ones that you declumped are next to, your deck is even more randomized than it would have been had you shuffled before you declumped.
However, I do concede the fact that by minimizing the possibility to have 2 of 1 card next to each other, you then maximize the possibility to have that card by another card, and this might be considered cheating by some. Increasing/decreasing certain odds can sometimes be seen as a way to get an unfair advantage. I, however, believe that declumping should not be considered cheating and increases the chance to get "true" randomness.
In any shuffle other than a pile shuffle, it is very likely that any 2 cards may stay together through the entire shuffle. That's just the nature of shuffling, whether you do a riffle shuffle, a cut style shuffle, or really anything else I can think of.
By declumping your deck before hand, or just moving the 2 DCE or Juniper or anything else that are right next to each other just a few cards apart, you would then maximize the chance to have those cards not next to each other. Technically, I would say that as long as you don't specifically pick what cards the ones that you declumped are next to, your deck is even more randomized than it would have been had you shuffled before you declumped.
However, I do concede the fact that by minimizing the possibility to have 2 of 1 card next to each other, you then maximize the possibility to have that card by another card, and this might be considered cheating by some. Increasing/decreasing certain odds can sometimes be seen as a way to get an unfair advantage. I, however, believe that declumping should not be considered cheating and increases the chance to get "true" randomness.
Last edited:
GravyBeast
New Member
I've been a poker dealer for 8 years and have dealt for the World Series of poker 4 years. People have wagered millions on my shuffle. The way 90% of dealers shuffle is a simple wash of the cards (hard to do with sleeves so maybe sub with some packet shuffling) "shuffle, shuffle, box(strip the deck 3-6 times), shuffle" then cut. This is basically the way I shuffle when I play pokemon tournies anymore. Just thought you guys might want to know what is considered a proper shuffle in the poker world.
Btw Jason, I'm still interested in your TCGO stuff. You never came back and checked that thread
Btw Jason, I'm still interested in your TCGO stuff. You never came back and checked that thread
I think you misunderstand the concept of "random." You're not baking a cake; the goal (assuming you're not intentionally stacking) isn't complete uniformity.
Say you start with a sequence of "1 2 3 4 5". Which of the following sequences is the most random?
a) 1 2 3 4 5
b) 1 3 2 4 5
c) 3 1 4 2 5
d) 5 4 3 2 1
...the answer is "that question doesn't make sense." There is no answer, given the choices provided. Now let me rephrase: Say you start with a sequence of "1 2 3 4 5", represented by numbers on playing cards. Which of the following is most random?
a) Cutting the cards seven times
b) Pile-shuffling into three piles seven times
c) Riffle-shuffling seven times
d) Riffle-shuffling six times, then checking the deck to make sure no two consecutive numbers are next to each other, then riffle-shuffling once more
The answer is unequivocally "c". "A" and "b" are completely deterministic -- you can pre-compute where every card will end up, and fairly easily at that. "D" is the entropy-equivalent of riffle-shuffling once (in other words, not all that random).
That is why some people have little patience for declumpers.
Ness
Member
What you have to realize is that placing two cards apart from each other is no more fair than placing two cards next to each other. The only difference is the latter is more blatant because drawing your Tynamo+Eelektrik produces an easily-seen advantage. When you are "declumping," the advantage you are attempting to create is so subtle that even when upheld by a weak shuffle, it goes unnoticed. When you draw a hand without any undesirable pairs of cards, you may not think anything of it. It may just appear as another random hand to you, but the truth is it is not.
When you move a Rare Candy away from another Rare Candy, then follow with a weak shuffle, the advantage it creates (which is unfair) can be seen in one of two days:
1) You're less likely to draw Rare Candy next to Rare Candy, which would generally be a bad hand.
2) The Rare Candy is more likely to end up next to a Stage 2 or basic Pokémon, which it will pair well with.
The reason so many people are tolerant of declumping isn't necessarily a lack of understanding of why it is wrong, it is just truthfully that the advantage it creates is so small that most players don't care. Someone who "declumps" a deck, even if he or she gets away with a weak shuffle afterwards, isn't going to pull off the "Play my 7 card hand down to zero and Turn 1 you" that someone who created a perfect stacking order of a deck might.
There's still a few people that don't like being told they shouldn't declump and understandably so: Who wants to mulligan endlessly? Who wants the chance of drawing a bunch of energy or otherwise bad pairs of cards together? No one likes to draw horrible hands or mulligan repeatedly. The truth is, though, such possibilities are the realities of a card game, and whether you're reducing the odds of them happening by 100% or .1%, you are, technically not playing fair. All players, no matter how skilled, are always at the mercy of the deck.
Last edited:
psychup2034
New Member
By definition, gaining information about a random process' result doesn't make the process by which you derived the result less random. The lottery numbers don't become any less random after they're broadcast to the public. The public just has more information about the results of the random process. As an example, let's assume that you're playing a lottery where order of results matters, akin to how the order of cards in your deck matters.
Random: You randomly select 6 numbered balls, one at a time. Look at the result each time.
A Lot Less Random: You randomly select 6 numbered balls, one at a time. Look at the result each time. Switch the order of some of the balls.
Last edited:
I can't believe I'm saying this but perhaps we need to look at this more practically. Given a pefect shuffle your deck will be completely random whether you de-clump your deck or not. That's the nature of randomization. However, in reality there is not going to be a perfect shuffle. It's very likely that some of your cards will remain "clumped" with others during your shuffle. Between games this means certain cards that are meant to be together (evolutions for example) will remain together. Pile shuffling (or any means of de-clumping) reduces this effect.
Further, I would argue the point of shuffling in TCG games is not randomness for the sake of randomness but so that each player does not know the order of cards in their deck. De-clumping increases this effect (if done blindly) because you cannot expect cards that were adjacent at the end of last game to be adjacent this game.
Therefore I believe blind de-clumping improves overrall gameplay. After all, it's better for a game to be decided by skill of the players (whether that be deck-building or tactical) and not by who got the better hand.
RM
Further, I would argue the point of shuffling in TCG games is not randomness for the sake of randomness but so that each player does not know the order of cards in their deck. De-clumping increases this effect (if done blindly) because you cannot expect cards that were adjacent at the end of last game to be adjacent this game.
Therefore I believe blind de-clumping improves overrall gameplay. After all, it's better for a game to be decided by skill of the players (whether that be deck-building or tactical) and not by who got the better hand.
RM
Last edited:
While it is true that both pile shuffling and declumping reduces the chance of having certain cards played in the last game clumped together, they are certainly not the same thing. When pile shuffling, you have no knowledge of what cards you are holding, so you might as well "clump" two cards together. When declumping, you have knowledge by looking at the cards, and you are making sure that no two cards are clumped together, so it obviously is a lot less random than a pile shuffle.
I also believe that by doing enough riffle shuffles and/or overhand shuffles, you can achieve a degree of randomness that is close to "true" randomness. However, any kind of deliberate rearranging (such as declumping) in between "true" shuffles is effectively reducing this degree of randomness, and therefore I consider it cheating.
This part really upset me. If you cannot expect cards that were adjacent last game to be adjacent this game, you are cheating. If declumping were allowed to the extent you are describing, so that you could "never get a bad hand", then it would be a completely different game. Variance is a part of the game - a newbie should be able to beat a pro if the pro draws really bad - but it's all about building your deck to minimize that variance. Declumping must not be a skill you have to master in order to beat the pros because then, it wouldn't take long until people resorted to true stacking.
In short, blind declumping might "improve" overall gameplay - by reducing the amounts of donks for example - but donks are a part of the game, whether you like it or not. If you hate them so much, build a deck with more basics or go play Magic instead, declumping is not the solution.
NoPoke
Active Member
No, you have that backwards! You should not expect cards that were together at the end of the last game to stay together after you have randomised your deck and presented it to the opponent. The deck shuffle is to remove order not to preserve it.
Players frequently complain of having all three or four of their xyz cards prized. That is a symptom of poor shuffling, one that can be addressed only by recognising that players don't shuffle well. If you pile shuffle or de-clump and then perform a moderate shuffle you will still get some clumps but they will be much more like the clumping that a fully randomised (ie computer randomised) deck will have.
Anyway thread has been done before... http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156331 so it might be worth checking out its earlier incarnation.
I have nothing against the issue being brought up again. It is very worthy of discussion.
Players frequently complain of having all three or four of their xyz cards prized. That is a symptom of poor shuffling, one that can be addressed only by recognising that players don't shuffle well. If you pile shuffle or de-clump and then perform a moderate shuffle you will still get some clumps but they will be much more like the clumping that a fully randomised (ie computer randomised) deck will have.
Anyway thread has been done before... http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156331 so it might be worth checking out its earlier incarnation.
I have nothing against the issue being brought up again. It is very worthy of discussion.
You mistake my meaning. When I say you "cannot expect" it is not the same as saying you "can expect not to." If you don't declump it increases your chances of drawing an Eelektrik after a Tynamo for example. In such a way de-clumping may actually create less desirable starting hands or draws. This is why I suggest pile shuffling as a method of declumping. In the process you seperate every card from the card next to it. You may seperate a copy of card A from card B and then place a second copy of card B atop card A but you won't know.
Alternatively, during any given game you may play (or place in discard) card A followed by card B. This could be two parts of the same evolution line, a basic and an energy card, a basic and a tool card or two complimentary trainers. If you don't declump, the next time you play you may draw into card B first (since your cards are now face-down) and deduce that your chance at drawing card A is great than any other card.
Now, this is still a gambling matter. I just think that pile shuffling is a fair way to blindly de-clump your deck so that you have no chance to deduce card order. Intentionally looking at your cards and arranging them so there is an even distribution (or groupings of different cards you want next to eachother) is more like making "good clumps" than actually de-clumping.
I think people may have differing ideas about what is and isn't cheating. However, no matter how you feel about a certain practice, if there is not an actual rule against it then it's not cheating. The official tournament rules state: "Each player’s deck is expected to be fully randomized at the start of each game and during the game, as card effects require." It doesn't matter what state your deck is in before the game. It's not against the rules to intentionally stack your deck to any precise order if you wish. Even if we think it should be against the rules it's probably not worth policing. Make it a point to shuffle your opponent's deck if you feel they haven't done it right.
Just to be clear, I think stacking the deck before a game is poor sportsmanship even if it's not illegal.
RM
Politoed666
New Member
I guess this thread is about declumping now. Okay.
I don't think what Mao did was okay. One of my opponents in top cut at a Regionals did this to me, and it put me on instant tilt. I don't know whether it's technically allowed or not, but it would be good if someone looked into that.
That said, I still declump. I make a point of doing it subtly so as not to anger my opponent, but I still do it. If I notice three of my Candies are adjacent while searching for something, I'll take one or two and move it to the front, as if I am contemplating taking them. Note that my method has nothing to do with "being careful because I know it's cheating." It is perfectly within the boundaries of the rules, as PokePop has noted in previous threads. I'd just rather not play someone who is annoyed with me.
When you pull stuff like Mao did, though, you alienate your opponent while pushing the boundaries of the rules.
I don't think what Mao did was okay. One of my opponents in top cut at a Regionals did this to me, and it put me on instant tilt. I don't know whether it's technically allowed or not, but it would be good if someone looked into that.
That said, I still declump. I make a point of doing it subtly so as not to anger my opponent, but I still do it. If I notice three of my Candies are adjacent while searching for something, I'll take one or two and move it to the front, as if I am contemplating taking them. Note that my method has nothing to do with "being careful because I know it's cheating." It is perfectly within the boundaries of the rules, as PokePop has noted in previous threads. I'd just rather not play someone who is annoyed with me.
When you pull stuff like Mao did, though, you alienate your opponent while pushing the boundaries of the rules.
- Status